Describing Chelsea's Season So Far

Post a moral victory over United, a description for the start of Chelsea’s season so far is an illusive substance. After nine games, we sit at the top of the league having suffered only one draw and defeat respectively. What’s there to complain about? After three games in the Champions League, we sit second in our group with our destiny in our own hands. Chelsea is comfortable and playing attractive football. Given the anticipated problems of integrating new players and forging a new approach, everything looks much better than expected.    
    Yet, however pleasing a positive result may be, don’t managers tend to reflect on the performance first and foremost? Winning a match because the referee sent off two of your opponent’s players is not nearly as constructive as winning a match through effervescent flair and determination. Losing a match because of a poor, potentially complacent performance in a distant second-world country is worse than losing because you were ‘Clattenburged’.
    The point is this: Chelsea have not won a game without playing well. Let’s not underrate Shakhtar, they are a formidable prospect for any team at the Donbass, where their record is nothing less than astonishing. Chelsea started poorly, were second best, and were consequently beaten. Against United, Chelsea started poorly and eventually suffered because of it, leaving aside the cloud of controversy which refuses to clear over Stamford Bridge these days. If winning without playing well is a mark of champions, than that is something we have not yet seen from Chelsea.
    But what about the ‘tests’ which Chelsea have overcome so far? Is that supposed to mean Arsenal away? Seriously, that wasn’t a test, that was a match against a team that sells its best players, buys dubious ones, and whose approach to any game is as predictable as Wenger is dogmatic and anachronistic. They suffer an inexplicable reverse, then are utterly hopeless for a period thereafter - probably finish in the top third nevertheless.
    And Tottenham away? If their inferiority complex had perhaps lifted given results in recent years, injecting a Chelsea-reject as manager and deploying one as captain can’t have been in the psychiatrist’s recommendations. Missing Bale and Dembele also meant that Chelsea were playing against a Spurs team bereft of their most dangerous components. We can say that Chelsea were tested, but it was not a test.
    Chelsea’s genuine examinations have come against United and Shakhtar and both games were lost. Apart from not turning up until halfway through the first-half in both games, Chelsea currently have an obvious tactical weakness. Their transition from attack to defence is shambolic. This is not necessarily the fault of the player’s, even though some of them might be a little too impetuous. It’s the system that is to blame and it was ruthlessly exposed in our two defeats. The full-backs have to provide width to Chelsea’s attacks, which leaves them exposed in two possible senses when Chelsea lose the ball (which happens far too cheaply and frequently): Firstly, they are often too high up the pitch to defend their nominal zones when teams counterattack; or secondly, are left outnumbered because there is no one to help in front of them. 
    Ferguson saw what happened in Ukraine and was inevitably going to exploit the evident weaknesses Chelsea have immediately after losing the ball. Other teams with effective wingers will have taken note. Teams which choose to play a counter-attacking game against Chelsea (probably most of them), know they will get some joy that way. We have seen in the past that a reliance on out-scoring your opponents is not a successful long-term strategy.
    So how would I describe Chelsea’s season so far? Too busy enjoying the beauty of it all to see the minefield. KTBFFH!

Poland vs England - Sad But True

Yes, you know what this is - another bucket of vitriol to pour over another entirely underwhelming England performance. Let us begin with a brief overview of the player's performance:

Hart - Not a great deal to do, but got it completely wrong for Poland's equaliser.
A.Cole - Mediocre. Did not do much wrong and was unable to go forward thanks to Poland's pace on the wings.
Lescott - Man City have leaked goals so far this season, and Joleon was beaten for Poland's goal.
Jagielka - Lucky not to pay for a potentially catastrophic mis-kick but otherwise one of England's better players on the day.
Johnson - Showed very little of his attacking strengths and often courted disaster in his own half, particularly with his headed clearances.  However, he did make a lot of excellent last ditch tackles.
Cleverley - He scored a fantastic fluke against Newcastle and now insists on hitting every long ball like he did that goal. Did nothing of note and plays like a panicked child in the headlights.
Carrick - Wow. Another pathetic passing performance from Carrick who is supposedly England's possession man. Managed two decent forward passes in the second-half. That is it.
Gerrard - Again England's best hope for creativity. His forward passing was dangerous if not always successful, and his rare forward runs caused some chaos. Another set-piece assist is something.
Milner - Hard-working Milner does not play for Man City, so he should practice his crossing for when he gets selected for England (again). Poor end product.
Rooney - Disappointing. Got the goal which came off his shoulder off a defender into the net. You take them, but a menhir in his position would have scored that one too. Should have buried another but did not.
Defoe - Had virtually nothing to feed on. Was constantly asked to receive long balls which is not his forte.
Welbeck (on for Defoe) - Did not manage much which was not his fault. Use of space admirable but left England with no one up front. Failed to win a penalty.
Chamberlain (on for Rooney) - Industrious and direct, but again not much to say for him.

I should mention the fact that the pitch was dire, thanks to the unimaginable ineptitude of whoever was charged with the roof last night. The ball moved slowly (and not just because of England's passing), but I am pretty sure that the opposing team played on the same pitch, so let us forget what should be a minor discomfort for highly-paid professionals.

Now we have established that England's players were individually poor on the whole, let us discuss the themes that emerged from the team's performance.

• England cannot pass the ball for shit. A.Cole, Lescott, Johnson, Cleverley, Carrick, Gerrard, Milner, Defore and Rooney all play for teams who are likely to have the better part of possession in most of the games they play in the league, but as per usual the team cannot pass successfully with any regularity. The fact of the matter is, so-called 'lesser' teams retain the ball better than England.

• The root of the above problem is the paradox of impatience and lack of tempo. England should be able to dominate because the players are good enough to play with tempo. However, tempo was singularly missing, and when you combine this with minimal movement, England always end up playing speculative passes, both short and long. It is understandable that difficult passes go amiss when they are part of a quick sequence of play, but trying passes that are not on is unforgiveable. Crazy passes without the context of urgency just does not make any sense. 

• England's players are woefully lacking in technical ability. The amount of times the midfield had to pass it back because they do not have the skill to turn quickly and open up the pitch for a forward pass was hugely frustrating. England need players that have got the skill to take people on, even if it is just a question of pace. Commit opponents and space opens up. Unfortunately, Chamberlain did not have enough time to make something happen. 

• Why did Hodgson play a 442? Is not English football trying to swerve madly away from this ancient and much discredited formation? How long has England tried this formula unsuccessfully? To my mind 442 is only good for one thing - lumping and crossing into the box. If you want to retain the ball, two men in the midfield is not enough. Productive retention of the ball is clearly a dream that England can hope to fulfill only in the far future. Decades in all likelihood. England, therefore, need to put at least 3 men in midfield to hold the ball, even though there is not any trickery available that could put that possession to good use.

England showed determination and energy but lacked other crucial qualities: creativity and composure. Only more gifted technical players will bring that to the current set-up. And where are they? Rotting in Lille and on the league match benches. If Hodgson is going to play 442 he needs to put players in that suit that system. Put pacey crossers of the ball on the wing, and have them and Gerrard lob balls at Carroll, who would almost certainly profit.

Sweet Jesus, why not bring in Sam Allardyce and let him maximise the strengths of England's players - Pace, power, energy, and a direct passing inclination. Oh no! Not Mr trollhead 'anti-football' himself you say? Get over yourself, England do not have the players to play like Barcelona and will not have them in time for 2014, let alone tournaments in this half of the century. Nobody will complain very loudly if England manage to batter their way into a semi-final. Until England have players who can pass there is no point trying to play a passing game. 

But England have never overcome a quarter-final playing long-ball 442 you say? Think about it people, if England manage to get into a semi-final that would put them amongst the top four teams in that tournament. Do England deserve that status? Don't think so. Do you really care how they get into a semi-final? Nope. 

It's sad but true, so deal with it.